Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

1. Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG3_Evaluations_of_Proposals] Date Submitted: [19 Sept 2000] Source: [Tom Siep] Company [Texas Instruments] Address [12500 TI Blvd, m/s 8723, Dallas, TX 75243, USA] Voice:[214.480.6786], FAX: [972.761.5581], E-Mail:[Siep@ti.com] Re: [Original document] Abstract: [Discussion of Current state of TG3 proposal selection process] Purpose: [The purpose of this highlight problems and present a set of solutions to aid in the orderly and proper disposition of proposal evaluations.] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by 802.15. Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

2. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks™ TG3 Evaluations of Proposals Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

3. PROBLEM Objection to current process of elimination of candidate proposals • Criteria continues to be clarified • Presenters have had varying interpretation of criteria, leading to • uneven data representations • voter confusion • Presenters have not had an opportunity to re-present their proposals in the light of clarified criteria Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

4. Objectors • Straw poll: presenters, then all attendees • Is the current method of elimination of candidate draft standard all of the following: • Fair? • Open? • Process based? • Unbiased? • The best way to get the best candidate? Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

5. Criteria continues to be clarified 00110rxx_TG3-Criteria-Definitions.doc • r9 26 June 2000 • baseline for last presentation • r10 11 July 2000 • Add Pugh matrix comparison mechanism • r11 13 July 2000 • Add location awareness • Remove weighting factors • r12 25 August 2000 • Add new weightings, based on LB5 • r13 Pending as of 19Sept2000 • Add informative annex Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

6. Uneven Data Representations • Example • Radiata used .18 micron technologies to calculate power consumption • TI used .13 micron technologies to calculate power consumption • Result • The difference in power consumption may overstate TI’s advantage Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

7. Possible outcomes • Presenters do not object, voters are satisfied they have had a fair and complete presentation of the proposals, first eliminated subset goes away • An objection is lodged (with worst outcome) • WG (direction to rework process) • ExCom (direction to issue new CFP) • Standards Association (Withdrawal of PAR) Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

8. Consequences to Not Allowing Re-Presentations • The Standard we produce will be vulnerable to invalidation any time from now to Standards Board approval due to the failure to properly consider minority technical opinions. • This vulnerability is: The entire Standards Process must restart with a new Call For Proposals This becomes a potential “submarine sabotage” of a completed Standard Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

9. Consequences of a CFP A new CFP restarts the clock and allows new entries into consideration. The net result is that we start over. If we wish to avoid this consequence, we must change the process Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

10. Plan to Fix the Problem • Defer winnowing process until Nov00 • PHY subcommittee to fix criteria • Call for evaluation review • Update evaluations via email/telecons • Re-Present proposals at Nov00 meeting • Convene a subcommittee to recommend a plan to assure the orderly and fair selection of the candidate Draft Standard. Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

11. Motion #1 Move to have TG3 delay the beginning winnowing process until the November 00 meeting, maintaining the goal to have a single MAC and PHY pair at the end of that meeting Moved: Tom Siep Second: Vote: for/against/abstain Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

12. Motion #2 Move to have the TG direct the PHY subcommittee commit to review and clarify PHY criteria for approval by the WG by the close of this meeting (Friday) Moved: Tom Siep Second: Vote: for/against/abstain Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

13. Motion #3 Move to have TG3 direct the PHY subcommittee to request proposers to identify any changes in evaluations that clarifications engender after those clarifications are completed Moved: Tom Siep Second: Vote: for/against/abstain Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

14. Motion #4 Move to have TG3 PHY subcommittee hold teleconferences or face to face meetings to resolve specific requests for change of evaluations, to be completed one week before Nov00 meeting Moved: Tom Siep Second: Vote: for/against/abstain Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

15. Motion #5 Move to have TG3 to allocate time at the beginning of Nov00 meeting for re-presentations of each of the remaining proposals. Moved: Tom Siep Second: Vote: for/against/abstain Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

16. Motion #6 Move to have TG3 convene a subcommittee to recommend a plan to assure the orderly and fair selection of the candidate Draft Standard. Moved: Tom Siep Second: Vote: for/against/abstain Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

17. Backups Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

18. Changes in Criteria The natural consequence of a change (any change) to the criteria is to issue a new Call for Proposals. Tom Siep, Texas Instruments